Recount

If you thought a movie about the controversial 2000 Presidential campaign recount in Florida, you're wrong. Just when you think it's some crazy movie, you recall that it all really happened. At times, only the CNN footage reminds us that it really did happen. The drama and gravitas of the story should not be lost, but is, upon Americans. The movie not only accurately portrays actual events, but notes their context and their importance to American history, an analysis that many have already so soon forgotten.

The star-filled cast's fame does not disservice or overshadow the characters they portray, a fine balance of talent and respect. Special note, however, must be paid to Laura Dern's awe-inspiring role as the aloof, artificial Secretary of State, Katherine Harris. Despite makeup which makes prostitutes jealous, her mannerisms and uncanny slanted poise cause incredulous disbelief that such a wacky imitation could be enacted. All the cast, however, is likewise surrealistically convincing.

The hard working, late hours, and soul-sucking reality of working in a campaign office, often a suite rented out of a strip shopping mall with temporary desks and phone lines cheaply laid in for only a few months' time, is evident and pervasive. Such atmospheres lend the movie a realistic feel of grassroots-level work. One is likely to develop a profound respect for the idealism and vigor (or ego) of such volunteers with such spartan environments.

Music is not even necessary as the chaotic, meaningless buzz of a campaign office or the silent seriousness of a limo ride are soundtracks in and of themselves. The seriousness of the situation does not let the viewer go for the entire movie's arc, from the movie's opening seconds when an elderly lady's seemingly innocent action will cause screaming suspended disbelief in all viewers alike. The tension continues for over an hour more, frustrating and terrifying viewers until an ending whose frustration compares with few other feelings. Even typically dry court readings gain an impossible level of drama, tension, and emotional disbelief to the point of tears as the movie progresses through the increasingly unbelievable tale. The dirty tactics are unsurprising, given recent politics, but to witness the beginnings of the such era in retrospective is humbling. The animosity of the foes is tempered with a thin grasp on reality and humanity, summoned by powers eluding most of us common lay men and women.

The film is so accurate and nearly documentary which is suitable for those of all political persuasions. The far more important point is the preservation of the Union and our ability to pass power peacefully and civilly. Affairs even weightier than party affiliation are at stake. The movie is trying on the heart and mind as it begs us to question how insane the electoral system is, a view with which those of all political persuasions may likely agree. Nonetheless, the system somehow survived to live another day, a day that will again return.

Recount (2008)

A fairly gripping political drama, well acted, and of course with historic filling. I realized just as the credits ran, however, that what had me going throughout was the events, the history, the reliving of a time that seemed to intense an unjust (or at least dubiously just). It wasn't the movie that drove the event, but the other way around.

And so it is with this kind of re-enactment of a big event.

However, there is a sudden letdown after all. I mean, after all, what else is there? Knowing what happened and visualizing it anew isn't quite great cinema.

Even though this is a great telling of those facts. Which is how you come to appreciate and judge it by the end. And it's not enough.

I watched it with someone who didn't live in the U.S. at the time, and had little information about the contested Gore v. Bush election battles. And without me explaining certain events it hovered as an abstract comment on the insider problems of election process. That sounds pretty dull, doesn't it? (She was asleep by the end, and I was not, which says something, but not everything.) Because in fact the contents are pretty dull stuff.

Which makes the movie more remarkable, I suppose—it makes exciting what is a legal maneuvering, office room discussion, telephone call kind of movie. The fact it ever happened is no surprising, given the other options in other countries. But the details are astounding, and those details—from the people cheering when the votes won't get counted to the concession, finally, by the loser—are all telling. About the system, about human nature.

And about rising above to find our better natures. Some of us, some of the time.

I had no idea how convoluted and poorly-handled the 2000 presidential election in Florida really was until seeing this movie. I remember that there were comments in the news about hanging chads, etc., but did not know about all of the legal and other issues that are revealed in the movie. It makes you wonder about all elections in all counties and states, on any issue.

It was absolutely riveting the entire way through--just when you think it was going one way, there would be a reversal. Fictional movies wish they had this many plot twists. My least favorite topic, normally, is politics, so for this movie to make an election in one state riveting, is saying a lot.

The performances were excellent, particularly by Kevin Spacey. The dialog and performances were so natural, it was almost like a documentary.

Great job by all!

There are two immutable facts that were brought out in this excellent film: one, Florida looked absolutely ridiculous in the way they conducted elections; and two, the 2000 election was absolutely stolen.

Florida will forever be stigmatized by butterfly ballots and hanging chads. The fact that election officials in some sixteen counties refused to do the machine recount as ordered shows the incompetency of our officials.

The recount notwithstanding, the manipulation of the voter roles and the subsequent disenfranchisement of 20,000 voters by the clownish Katherine Harris, played perfectly by Laura Dern, casts a permanent stain on the legitimacy of the Bush presidency.

The fact that the details of this movie were well known did not detract one bit from its enjoyment. It was compelling and exciting and the performances of stars like Kevin Spacey, Tom Wilkinson, and Dern made you forget that you knew the ending.

If you were paying attention to the United States presidential election in 2000, then I suppose you must have a streak of masochism in order to watch this recapitulation--it is bound to stir up the powerful emotions experienced at the time, no matter what side of the divide you were on. Just read some of the reviews and comments to verify what a hot button issue this still is. If you were not paying attention in 2000, or you are too young to remember, then this film will certainly introduce you to all the major events and issues: hanging chads, dimpled chads, recounts, court cases, accusations of voter suppression, confusing ballots, the status of military votes, and so forth. The major players in this high-stakes drama are all here too, and documentary footage is inserted for believability. The film is definitely more than loosely based on fact, since most of the public statements are taken from the record. It's the extrapolations to what went on behind closed doors that is open to question.

This plays like a thriller, even for those who are familiar with the story. If none of this ever happened, then I think all would agree that this is a good movie with a great plot and fine cast. Laura Dern, as Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, creates a memorable character and Tom Wilkinson is a standout as Bush's legal adviser James Baker (Secratary of State under George H. W. Bush). Wilkinson captures Baker almost to the point where you could mistake him for the real person.

I think it came as a surprise at the time that the United States election process could ever be so fouled up. If there is a non-partisan message to be had from this movie it is that measures should be taken to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. While the 2000 election led to the Election Reform Act of 2002, the process is still far from perfect, especially since implementation details are left up to the individual states. Much controversy still exists over electronic voting machines, requirements for user ID, and so forth. And the current Coleman vs. Franken senate contest in Minnesota, now in its fourth month and still undecided, proves that extremely close contests are still messy affairs. Since there are so many arguments to be made on either side in such cases, I often think that such close elections should be decided by a coin toss.

It seems impossible to find a generally-accepted unbiased telling of the 2000 election. The reviews for all books I have looked into seem to split on party lines. Maybe it is impossible to be impartial on this one.